Disturbing...
Alexa C Mason
groups.
It brought up my recent posts yes, but next to them, it had..
"Alexa Removal.
Instructions for removing Alexa "
Bastards.
Naming a fricking toolbar after me.
Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood
test revealed I very likely have SLE.
The day gets better and better.
--
La la la...
Ian Pallfreeman
Alexa C Mason <crazylittleb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood
>test revealed I very likely have SLE.
Oh, for fucksake, why don't you just strangle the ignorant twat.
Either the SLE is iatrogenic or he should have found it nearly two
years ago.
Alex Buell
> Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood test
> revealed I very likely have SLE.
What's SLE?
--
Positive thinking inside.
http://www.munted.org.uk (updated 14 August 2002)
Ian Pallfreeman
Alex Buell <alex....@munted.org.uk> wrote:
>What's SLE?
Lupus. Nasty autoimmune thing.
Juggs
(Alexa C Mason) wrote:
>Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood
>test revealed I very likely have SLE.
Ouch. Sorry.
Glenys
--
Take a walk down to the mall, smelling piss and beer and gas.
Sam Nelson
Alex Buell <alex....@munted.org.uk> writes:
> On 16 Aug 2002, Alexa C Mason wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood test
> > revealed I very likely have SLE.
>
> What's SLE?
Systemic Lupus Erythromatosus, I'm assuming. Long-term prednisolone
dependency...?
--
SAm.
Alex Buell
That's what my sister's been diagnosed with. They put her through hell
with all sorts of tests for years, as it's such a difficult condition to
diagnose. She's had to take so much time off from university because of
it, but she's a lot better these days. In fact, she's in Peru right now
researching manatees.
Ian Pallfreeman
Sam Nelson <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote:
>Systemic Lupus Erythromatosus, I'm assuming. Long-term prednisolone
>dependency...?
Um, as cause, or effect?
Ian Pallfreeman
Alex Buell <alex....@munted.org.uk> wrote:
>That's what my sister's been diagnosed with. They put her through hell
>with all sorts of tests for years, as it's such a difficult condition to
>diagnose.
Was she taking anything before/whilst they did the tests?
Sam Nelson
I know of two people diagnosed with SLE, and they both ended up on it. Maybe
that's old hat these days?
--
SAm.
Ian Pallfreeman
Sam Nelson <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote:
>I know of two people diagnosed with SLE, and they both ended up on it. Maybe
>that's old hat these days?
Profitable drugs never fall out of favour.
I was just wondering if you thought it partly responsible for SLE, rather
than being used as a way to relieve it. Or even both -- nothing to do with
the drugs industry suprises me any more.
Alex Buell
I don't think she was.
deborah barrie
You should join a lupus group. Many people that I know that have it have
responded well to building up their immune system through detox, acupuncture and
massage. It makes sense since it is an auto immune disease.
Deborah
deborah barrie
My doctor who never give a lupus patient steroids, it would compromise their
already endangered system.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> Don't talk utter and complete bollocks. Prednisolone is the *standard* treatment
> for lupus.
>
>
Not at my doctors office, times are changing huge.
Deborah
Ian Pallfreeman
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
>Don't talk utter and complete bollocks. Prednisolone is the *standard*
>treatment for lupus.
And since when did you adhere to standards? See threads thataway about
NT being "standard".
You have a hole in your mind.
Ian Pallfreeman
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
>Nope. It's still all they can give you.
Give? Since when did you accept "give"? Take, man. Take. With all that
it implies.
deborah barrie
> In article <3D5D6BCF...@sympatico.ca>, deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >Huge wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3D5D5DB3...@sympatico.ca>, deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> >Ian Pallfreeman wrote:
>
> [12 lines snipped]
>
> >> >My doctor who never give a lupus patient steroids, it would compromise their
> >> >already endangered system.
> >>
> >> Don't talk utter and complete bollocks. Prednisolone is the *standard* treatment
> >> for lupus.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not at my doctors office,
>
> Then your doctor should be struck off. He *does* have some qualifications, does he, other
> than in plumbing?
>
Actually it is a she. Yes she is very qualified. A much sought after speaker around the world and head
of Phyicians and Scientists for A Healthy World. She has various degrees in chemistry and is married
to a well respected scientists who she confurs with among others. She manages to help many regain
their health who were tossed off by other doctors.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > She has various degrees in chemistry and is married to a well
> > respected scientists who she confurs with among others.
>
> Confurs?
>
> > She manages to help many regain their health who were tossed off by
> > other doctors.
>
> Why can I never find doctors like that, eh?
>
>
There is a cost to be paid, office visits last from five to eight hours ,
sometimes longer. Bring a lunch.She will pop in an out of the room,
because the phone is always ringing from some other doctor or celebrity
wanting or offering data. She brings in books for you to read or puts you
to work researching something. She will remember something and off she
goes to confer or research herself. She is a genius but like most
geniuses she has her ways. She gives you three numbers to reach her so
you can tell her any new symptom or anything you may have noticed. She
thinks nothing of phoning you on her day off from whoever she is because
she has a wonderful idea and wants to tell you about it. And most
wonderful of all, she loves her patients and we all hug her. I have
threatened to open a buffet in her office though.
When I first went to her, I was so ill and had little hope. She got me in
a treatment program designed for me and after several months, I was pain
free for the first time in years. When I ran out of money because none of
the services were covered she wrote the government and did interviews
with the press to draw attention to those who were being left poisoned
and untreated. She started to ask me to come in to her office and she
would drop everything to give me acupuncture and a massage herself . I
quit allowing her to do that as her time is better spent helping those
who need her more. She doesn't quit phoning though to try and get me back
in. There are angels.
Deborah
bof
<debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes
>She manages to help many regain
>their health who were tossed off by other doctors.
was this as part of the treatment, or some form of malpractice?
--
Saturday nite at the Roxy the Mecca
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > > > She manages to help many regain their health who were tossed off by
> > > > other doctors.
> > >
> > > Why can I never find doctors like that, eh?
> >
> > There is a cost to be paid, office visits last from five to eight hours ,
> > sometimes longer.
>
> Joke, dear, joke.
> In UK english "to toss off" means "to masturbate".
>
I see, i will have to get me an english dictionary one day. You guys can be
very confusing. Here, those words used in that context would mean something
simular but with a partner. Anyway I have had little sleep in days. I will be
moving soon to try and access treatment again as I am very ill.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> In message <3D5E4C05...@sympatico.ca>, deborah barrie
> <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes
> >She manages to help many regain
> >their health who were tossed off by other doctors.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> was this as part of the treatment, or some form of malpractice?
>
Thanks to August, i can say, ha ha.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> In article <3D5E4C05...@sympatico.ca>, deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >Huge wrote:
>
> [19 lines snipped]
>
> >> Then your doctor should be struck off. He *does* have some qualifications, does he, other
> >> than in plumbing?
> >>
> >
> >Actually it is a she.
>
> Whatever.
>
> > Yes she is very qualified. A much sought after speaker around the world
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> >and head
> >of Phyicians and Scientists for A Healthy World.
>
> Some bunch of barking loons.
>
> >She has various degrees in chemistry and is married
> >to a well respected scientists who she confurs with among others. She manages to help many regain
> >their health who were tossed off by other doctors.
>
> In other words, she's a lippy loon. Great.
>
>
Whatever huge
Deborah
Ian Pallfreeman
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>And since when did you adhere to standards? See threads thataway about
>>NT being "standard".
>>
>>You have a hole in your mind.
>
>drooling retards put together.
I didn't know about your mother, I would have been more careful and less
cryptic if I had. I can understand why you're angry, and can't think what
to say other than sorry.
I'm still puzzled though about your apparent deference to medics. From
my point of view, if you say _you_ think a treatment is the correct one,
it's a very different thing from your saying _they_ think it's correct.
And the "hole in your mind" is another B5 misquote, I'm afraid.
Alexa C Mason
heated argument between the boys and wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2002 02:44:47 -0700, crazylittleb...@hotmail.com
> (Alexa C Mason) wrote:
>
> >Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood
> >test revealed I very likely have SLE.
>
> Ouch. Sorry.
He-ey. I'm surprisingly good about it.
Parents aren't - I told them and left out nearly all the details. But
the swines googled it out and at the same time found something I wrote
saying that I don't get on incredibly well with them.
Cue angry text message from mum(You see? Bloody mobile phones. I knew
they were a bad idea) saying that I think she's a bad mother etc etc.
I try to make everything sound alright and it just buggers up.
Fine.
I shall then skin up, get very drunk and just not give a fuck then.
Oh, but not until I've done the 3 gigs I've got coming up.
And the competition.
Ah.
Lacrame, anyone?
-
La la la
Ian Pallfreeman
Probably yes, but whooshed.
English solo lute music?
deborah barrie
> Your point of view appears to be that medical conditions can be cured
> by shaking bags of bones over the patient.
That is nonsense Huge, to mock is not a very intelligent response. To repair a damaged
immune system by rebuilding it works. It is hardly unreasonable.
Deborah
>
>
SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome
Alexa C Mason <crazylittleb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb6dafc7.0208...@posting.google.com...
> Lacrame, anyone?
Lycra macrame?
could be interesting
Juggs
<daveD...@man.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Lacrame, anyone?
>
>Lycra macrame?
>could be interesting
With a stretch of the imagination.
Glenys
--
Take a walk down to the mall, smelling piss and beer and gas.
Put my first name and tgis in the right places.
Militant Hedgerow
wrote:
>Why can I never find doctors like that, eh?
My mother chose a particular dentist because he once he had an
accusation of that kind of malpractice levelled at him, but her luck
wasn't in.
Militant Hedgerow
(Alexa C Mason) wrote:
>Lacrame, anyone?
No thanks, it gives me a terrible hangover.
Ian Pallfreeman
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
>Your point of view appears to be that medical conditions can be cured
>by shaking bags of bones over the patient.
You get the opinions, not the reasoning.
Orthodox medicine failed for me, and failed for both my parents. I just
don't trust it, and this leads me to challenge anyone who seems to.
And it's sacrificing chickens.
Ian Pallfreeman
JAF <j....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2002 23:41:57 GMT, i...@mcc.ac.uk (Ian Pallfreeman) wrote:
>
>> and this leads me to challenge anyone who seems to.
>
>by good old conventional medicine, and yes, dedicated and highly
>capable NHS staff.
Orthodox medicine works when cause and cure are known. This is what
makes it orthodox.
Where it fails is for complex conditions where often whole-body
dysfunction occurs. Here, factors such as environment, lifestyle,
diet and state of mind are interlinked in such a way that orthdox
medicine cannot and indeed should not be looked upon as the complete
solution.
Man.
Shade
> On 18 Aug 2002 00:39:03 GMT, i...@mcc.ac.uk (Ian Pallfreeman) wrote:
>
>>
>> Where it fails is for complex conditions where often whole-body
>> dysfunction occurs. Here, factors such as environment, lifestyle,
>> diet and state of mind are interlinked in such a way that orthdox
>> medicine cannot and indeed should not be looked upon as the complete
>> solution.
>
>
> Oh well.
What you doing up?
---
--
uk.misc Don't change your bedlinen without it.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/allen.clark/
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 15/08/2002
Keith Willoughby
> Then you're a dickhead. Nothing personal, you understand.
Few hundred years ago he would have been a dickhead for not trusting
trepanning and leeches to cure his ills. Maybe in a few more hundred
years they'll be laughing at our woefully inept antibiotics and
surgery.
Or maybe not. But I don't have your utter certainty either way.
--
Keith Willoughby | http://flat222.org/keith/
"It sure was strange to see something on Usenet
about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape."
- Wil Wheaton
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> But one thing I know for certain, 99.99% of "alternative" "medicine"
> is bollocks.
I started to have my doubts about it a few years back. A few years back, a
homeopathic doctor was stuck off because he failed to diagnose a girl's
brain tumour. He carried on giving her useless homeopathic treatments but
she eventually died.
Some alternative treatments do work. I know tea tree oil works pretty well
as an antiseptic for example. However, I'm not convinced by "energy" based
things. Energy is pretty well defined scientifically, but the "energy" some
practitioners talk about is more like positive thinking. Feng shui has been
described jokingly as the ancient Japanese art of tidying up, but if you do
personalise somewhere by rearranging things and adding plants around the
place, you *will* feel better, "energy" or not. The same with things like
aromatherapy. If somewhere smells nice or looks nice, you will feel better.
You don't need a £50/hour consultant to tell you that. I do wonder how much
alternative "medicine" is placebo.
I think Steven Fry got it right: "Science doesn't know everything, but that
doesn't mean science knows nointhg."
mh.
--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
Ian Pallfreeman
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>Where it fails is for complex conditions where often whole-body
>>dysfunction
>
>starts.
I wouldn't argue about the drooling, but the concept is pretty easy.
Something bad which seems to affect the whole body, and in particular
conditions which are nervous-system related.
>What? The body is a machine. OK, it's a very complex machine, but
>a machine nonetheless.
Sure. And it has software. We might say we understand most of how
the individual hardware components work, and have a pretty good
idea of how the entire system fits together. I'd even go as far
as to say that we have some insight on how the software works,
or, at least, the algorithms which it seems to be executing.
But I'd argue that we know very little indeed about how the
software and hardware interact, and, since both are essentially
self-modifying systems, how changes in one can affect the other.
Can a machine ever be smart enough to understand itself? And if
it ever does manage that, does it not then by definition become
smarter, and so we go round again?
>But one thing I know for certain, 99.99% of "alternative" "medicine"
>is bollocks.
And I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest.
Keith Willoughby
> In article <ouvnja...@flat222.dyndns.org>, Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
> >hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) writes:
> >
> >> In article <ajmn05$23di$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, i...@mcc.ac.uk (Ian Pallfreeman) writes:
> >> >In article <ajm32e$19i$2...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
> >> >Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >>Your point of view appears to be that medical conditions can be cured
> >> >>by shaking bags of bones over the patient.
> >> >
> >> >You get the opinions, not the reasoning.
> >> >
> >> >Orthodox medicine failed for me, and failed for both my parents. I just
> >> >don't trust it, and this leads me to challenge anyone who seems to.
> >>
> >> Then you're a dickhead. Nothing personal, you understand.
> >
> >Few hundred years ago
>
> Doubtless you've noticed it's not a few hundred years ago.
It will be in a few hundred years from now, if you see what I
mean. Which was my point.
> >he would have been a dickhead for not trusting
> >trepanning and leeches to cure his ills. Maybe in a few more hundred
> >years they'll be laughing at our woefully inept antibiotics and
> >surgery.
> >
> >Or maybe not. But I don't have your utter certainty either way.
>
> Neither do I. But I recognise bollocks when I see it.
They probably said that a few hundred years ago, too, about washing
your hands before eating, or whatever.
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> They probably said that a few hundred years ago, too, about washing
> your hands before eating, or whatever.
The man who discovered you can remove a number of bugs by washing your hands
died from an infected cut, on his hand.
People were beginning to realize that disease wasn't spread by evil spirits
at least 150 years ago. Lister discovered carbolic could be used as an
antiseptic a few years before Pasteur discovered bacteria. Jon Snow found
the cause of cholera (?) to be water borne in about the C18th when he shut
down that punp in Broad St. I suppose at the time, disease being spread by
tiny little animals you couldn't see was pretty implausible, which is why
the "poisonous miasma" theory was popular. Smelly things (such as sewers or
rotting food) often have a lot of disease, but the cause and effect aren't
qiute right.
Linz
You don't trust it so no-one else should?
deborah barrie
I think it is amazing the way many people lump everything from acupuncture to
crystals in one bag when they want to dis natural medicine. I don't hear that
kind of talk about conventional medicine. I would no more accept over use of
antibiotics from a medical doctor pushing patients through his office than I
would my naturopath telling me energy movement would heal me. I do believe in
energy, positive energy, thought, touch etc. but I think restoring our
natural minerals, vitamins, eating clean food and drinking clean water are
very important. I am more a believer in environmental medicine which is an
entirely different thing that natural medicine. However I think all forms of
medicine have both good and bad points.
Deborah
Ian Pallfreeman
No, I'm getting with the program: _all_ *standards* are, of course,
religiously correct, one size fits all, and everybody's happy.
I'm convinced. I'm changing my my opinion.
I trust it, so everyone else should?
Sam Maughan
Was that in reference to orthodox or non-orthodox medicine. Okay, I
know the answer, but the question can be used both ways, can't it?
Huge thinks non-orthodox medicine is a bit bollocks. I agree. But
whatever makes someone feel better and actually improve health wise is
okay by me. I have no problem with the method, be that paying money
for alternatives, visiting a hospital/GP (paying through tax or
privately) or praying for it (collection plate, plus.)
I do have a problem with those who force their version on health and
well being on me, when they have little concern for me, just my
money. That includes all drug companies, all alternative clinics,
most GPs, all religious authority, all companies actually, and of
course Uri.
Sam.
Sam Maughan
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > I do believe in energy, positive energy,
>
> Care to offer an explanation as to hoe "energy",
When you can strip and burn that garden _really_ quickly?
> What are unnatural minerals?
Tsk, GM minerals of course.
Sam.
Julian Edge
>> Huge thinks non-orthodox medicine is a bit bollocks. I agree. But
>> whatever makes someone feel better and actually improve health wise
>> is okay by me. I have no problem with the method, be that paying
>> money for alternatives, visiting a hospital/GP (paying through tax
>> or privately) or praying for it (collection plate, plus.)
>
> Quite; that's what evidence-based medicine is all about.
> Unfortunately, orthodox medicine has been just as lax on this front
> are "alternative" until recently.
What has happened recently? I saw an advert yesterday for a painkiller that
'acts twice as fast as ordinary painkillers'. I guess with so little money
left over after the marketing budget, the research has to be chosen
carefully. Useless, money grabbing fuckers. The drugs companies are
parasitic bastards leeching off the purses of the aged and aching who
believe the 24/7 crap about being painless and wrinkle free until the day
you die.
At least (IMHO) the purveyors of alternative medicines do so with relatively
moral and honest motives.
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > I do believe in energy, positive energy,
>
> Care to offer an explanation as to hoe "energy", "positive enery", and
> "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for the
sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
>
>
> > thought, touch etc. but I think restoring our natural minerals,
>
> What are unnatural minerals?
I was referring to the natural balance of minerals in our body, which
depending upon our diet, health and environment are disrupted differently
in each of us.
>
>
> --
> one afternoon long ago
Deborah
today
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> August West wrote:
>
>> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>> > I do believe in energy, positive energy,
>>
>> Care to offer an explanation as to hoe "energy", "positive enery", and
>> "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
>
> negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for the
> sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
> bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
> against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
Sounds more like:
+ve "energy" = stuff that makes you feel good
-ve "energy" = stuff that makes you feel bad
There's "energy" and there's energy. "Energy" seems to be synonymous with
words such as "vibes" and is more of a marketing term. Real energy relates
to things like chemical reactions, physical processes and the like.
Keith Willoughby
> There's "energy" and there's energy. "Energy" seems to be synonymous with
> words such as "vibes" and is more of a marketing term. Real energy relates
> to things like chemical reactions, physical processes and the like.
That's a mighty superior attitude. Why does the scientific definition
take precedence?
When someone says that they won't wash the dishes because they "don't
have the energy", do you take that to mean that they don't have the
capacity to turn chemical energy into kinetic energy; or do you take
it to mean that they're tired and don't have the motivation to wash
the dishes?
Julian Edge
>> At least (IMHO) the purveyors of alternative medicines do so with
>> relatively moral and honest motives.
>
> Bw[snip]hha.
Hence the word 'relatively', arsehole.
Sam Maughan
> Sam Maughan <s...@gubbyink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Huge thinks non-orthodox medicine is a bit bollocks. I agree. But
> > whatever makes someone feel better and actually improve health wise
> > is okay by me. I have no problem with the method, be that paying
> > money for alternatives, visiting a hospital/GP (paying through tax
> > or privately) or praying for it (collection plate, plus.)
>
> Quite; that's what evidence-based medicine is all about.
> Unfortunately, orthodox medicine has been just as lax on this front
> are "alternative" until recently.
Evidence requires measurement. How do you measure somebody 'feeling
better'? One can measure the progress of treatment that _should_ mean
someone feels better, so why don't they?
The 'blind' experiments using a placebo control group is explained as
the administrator of the 'new' drug, or the receiver of the drug not
knowing if it is the real thing or not as that will naturally
influence the experiment. What is exactly influenced here?
There are a number of adverts telling me about the better affects of
various pain killers, would they work if they just contained chalk?
If I stuck needles into your body at various points, just before you
hit me hard while on the 'phone to your lawyer, would you receive any
help from my treatment?
What about if I gave you years worth of 'pre' treatment involving all
available media, all sources. _Now_ i stick needles into various
parts of your body. At the end you will even complement me on how
much better you feel.
What happened? And was I wrong to take you money off you to achieve
the results?
It is all belief. I don't believe for a second needles will help me
get through some pain (unless loaded with Codeine of course.) So it
will have no affect on me _at all_.
It extends way beyond the medical profession, feeling 'good' about
oneself is most of the battle, no matter what we are talking about.
Sam.
deborah barrie
If you don't think your body chemistry and energy is effected by the things I
stated, you have alot to learn
Deborah
deborah barrie
> In article <ajoif8$1ddmqv$1...@ID-65508.news.dfncis.de>, "Julian Edge" <julia...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> [20 lines snipped]
>
> >At least (IMHO) the purveyors of alternative medicines do so with relatively
> >moral and honest motives.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.
>
> --
>
Sound arguement as usual.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> sp...@nukesoft.co.uk (Marcus Houlden) writes:
>
> > There's "energy" and there's energy. "Energy" seems to be synonymous with
> > words such as "vibes" and is more of a marketing term. Real energy relates
> > to things like chemical reactions, physical processes and the like.
>
> That's a mighty superior attitude. Why does the scientific definition
> take precedence?
>
> When someone says that they won't wash the dishes because they "don't
> have the energy", do you take that to mean that they don't have the
> capacity to turn chemical energy into kinetic energy; or do you take
> it to mean that they're tired and don't have the motivation to wash
> the dishes?
>
I gnerally take that as they think i am going to do it. So I kick them in the
butt to kickstart their enegry. It is amazing the way the positive engery gets
them going.
Deborah
deborah barrie
Are you having a good day dear.
Deborah
Julian Edge
> Are you having a good day dear.
Mindyerownfukkinbusiness!
I'm alright. Work tomorrow, that's all.
bof
<debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes
>August West wrote:
>
>> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>> > I do believe in energy, positive energy,
>>
>> Care to offer an explanation as to hoe "energy", "positive enery", and
>> "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
>
>negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for the
>sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
>bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
>against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
in that case "positive energy" is actually having a sensible approach to
ones life, for me this doesn't require crystals or feng shui.
--
Saturday nite at the Roxy the Mecca
bof
<s...@gubbyink.demon.co.uk> writes
>It extends way beyond the medical profession, feeling 'good' about
>oneself is most of the battle, no matter what we are talking about.
Be positive and go for it, whatever it is you want.
deborah barrie
You won't be wearing a trench coat to work tomorrow I hope. I wish I
could swear back at you and cheer you up but you know how that is.
Deborah
deborah barrie
It doesn't for me either.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:25:27 -0400, deborah barrie
> <debbie...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Care to offer an explanation as to hoe "energy", "positive enery", and
> >> "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
> >
> >negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for the
> >sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
> >bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
> >against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
>
> How does that fit in with E=mc²?
>
Turn the letters upside down, close one eye and whistle, i think you may get
it then
Deborah
Shade
>>> and "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
>>
>> negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for
>> the sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when
>> you think bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you
>> beat your head against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not
>> your head
>
Hasn't that been debunked? Something to do with the speed of light no
longer being constant?
Hell, what do i know?
---
--
uk.misc Don't change your bedlinen without it.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/allen.clark/
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 15/08/2002
Julian Edge
>> How does that fit in with E=mc²?
>
> Hasn't that been debunked? Something to do with the speed of light no
> longer being constant?
It's a misnomer. The actual result was (delta)E = (delta)mc^2
Glenys will explain.
> Hell, what do i know?
More than me. Glenys?
Juggs
wrote:
>Hasn't that been debunked? Something to do with the speed of light no
>longer being constant?
Eibeck or somebody will probably step in, but the equation probably
still holds, but yes. In the earlier universe, it is very likely that
c was smaller.
Look for books by Alan Guth on Amazon.
Glenys
--
Take a walk down to the mall, smelling piss and beer and gas.
Put my first name and tgis in the right places.
Juggs
<julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Hell, what do i know?
>
>More than me. Glenys?
Eibeck knows more than me.
The Revanchist
"deborah barrie" <debbie...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D5FDC92...@sympatico.ca...
> bof wrote:
> >
> > in that case "positive energy" is actually having a sensible approach
to
> > ones life, for me this doesn't require crystals or feng shui.
>
> It doesn't for me either.
Nor for me, but it is a definite part of other's culture. Some people find
that such 'aids' are what spur their own thoughts on; the foundation,
perhaps, of their motivation or energy. Other people believe in the stars -
horoscopes or whatever form you care to think of - and these are important
facvtors in their attitude towards their lives. Much the same as
homeopathic and orthodox (or conventional) medicine can find different
supoorters, so can all the other methods of ruling or healing life. And
conventional medicine is often - not always, but often - influenced by
homeopathic or alternative medicine; conventional medicine uses chemicals
which plants and herbs contain anyway, but which aren'tz marketed by
massive pharmaceutical companies.
--
The Revanchist
'Revenge is mine' saith the Lord, 'so, let's talk franchising.'
TLC (tinlc)(tm) #2002, F6C, GSF1200S, BgR, Pr.Int.
revanchist [at] arcor [.] de
revanchist [at] letterwriter [.] net
The Revanchist
"JAF" <j....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2aovlusnn7k3nnf69...@4ax.com...
> >> "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
> >
> >negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for the
> >sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
> >bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
> >against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
>
Energy (the boot) meets (=) backside (m) and produces washing up in double
quick time (c²).
Chris Eilbeck
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 20:21:08 +0100, "Julian Edge"
> <julia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hell, what do i know?
> >
> >More than me. Glenys?
>
> Eibeck knows more than me.
Hey, OK, so I've read a few books on physics. I can handle it. I'm
not, like, addicted or anything.
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck mailto:ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk
Julian Edge
> Hey, OK, so I've read a few books on physics. I can handle it. I'm
> not, like, addicted or anything.
It's a gateway to stronger science.
deborah barrie
> "deborah barrie" <debbie...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D5FDC92...@sympatico.ca...
> > bof wrote:
> > >
> > > in that case "positive energy" is actually having a sensible approach
> to
> > > ones life, for me this doesn't require crystals or feng shui.
> >
> > It doesn't for me either.
>
> Nor for me, but it is a definite part of other's culture. Some people find
> that such 'aids' are what spur their own thoughts on; the foundation,
> perhaps, of their motivation or energy. Other people believe in the stars -
> horoscopes or whatever form you care to think of - and these are important
> facvtors in their attitude towards their lives. Much the same as
> homeopathic and orthodox (or conventional) medicine can find different
> supoorters, so can all the other methods of ruling or healing life. And
> conventional medicine is often - not always, but often - influenced by
> homeopathic or alternative medicine; conventional medicine uses chemicals
> which plants and herbs contain anyway, but which aren'tz marketed by
> massive pharmaceutical companies.
>
> Way to go Rev exactly. It is very shallow minded to believe we know what is
> right for everyone else or perhaps even for ourselves. I am a dreamwalker, i
> make no apologies. I became interested while reading Carl Jung's theroies on
> dreams and then by studying Indian culture. Then one day I read a book on it
> and it was the first time that I really thought of it as something for my own
> life. It has given me much relief from pain and restores my energy. Is it all
> in my head? Of course, that is where we dream. I see all kinds of doctors. My
> GP who is a "normal" doctor believes in many things that do not "feel' right
> for me and she forces nothing upon me that I do not want. She is an expert in
> natural and environmental medicine as well. As we have become good friends I
> know that she believes that God is the real answer to what will happen to us.
> Once again this is something that a person chooses to or not believe. I
> personally have more faith in God than any form of medicine but if I get hit
> by a car, I will pray while dialing 911, he gave us a brain to use.
Deborah
bof
>bof wrote:
>
>> In message <3D5FCA77...@sympatico.ca>, deborah barrie
>> <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes
>> >negative energy is when you waste your time, agrue with people for the
>> >sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
>> >bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
>> >against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
>>
>> in that case "positive energy" is actually having a sensible approach to
>> ones life, for me this doesn't require crystals or feng shui.
>>
>
>It doesn't for me either.
You came across as banging on about non orthodox medicine as a source of
'positive energy'; if it's not simply a sensible approach to life, and
it's not feng shui or crystals, what is it that you promote as a source
of 'positive energy'?
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> If you don't think your body chemistry and energy is effected by the things I
> stated, you have alot to learn
I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that +ve and -ve "energy"
are nothing more than sonething like marketing terms. I normally use +ve and
-ve in the context of electrical energy. Perhaps what people mean is that if
you touch a -ve terminal you will be in a bad mood and if you touch a +ve
one you will be in a good mood.
Shereen
> Oh yeah, the doc's urgent request to see me was to tell me my blood
> test revealed I very likely have SLE.
Sorry to hear that Angel.
Is there any change the doc's talking out of their arse and you don't
have it?
Shereen
--
"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up
in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day."
http://www.eLancer2000.com - Work globally, locally
deborah barrie
Lots, of things, positive thinking, self esteem for a start. Acupuncture,
massage, exercise, good diet, clean water, finding out what things your body is
missing and restoring the balance. Removing toxins if you are contaminated and
most of us are.
We are eneryi in or out of balance. I think most medicine is not good for us but
has to be put up with much of the time until something better comes along.
I myself when i get full treatment, do not need meds but without acupuncture,
massage etc, i can not cope with the level of pain without them. Oh yes, not
forget sex, we need good sex.
Deborah
deborah barrie
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:55:17 -0400, deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote the following to uk.misc:
>
> > If you don't think your body chemistry and energy is effected by the things I
> > stated, you have alot to learn
>
> I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that +ve and -ve "energy"
> are nothing more than sonething like marketing terms. I normally use +ve and
> -ve in the context of electrical energy. Perhaps what people mean is that if
> you touch a -ve terminal you will be in a bad mood and if you touch a +ve
> one you will be in a good mood.
>
> mh.
I am sure this is just another language issue, words and be very limiting. If a
woman was to tell you that you smelt good, your energy would change. If she were to
show you , they level of energy change would be much more dramatic
Deborah
Keith Willoughby
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > If you don't think your body chemistry and energy is effected by the
> > things I stated, you have alot to learn
>
> Energy, yes, but "negative" and "postive" energy, in that contect, is
> just so much bollocks.
It's a euphemism. Forget the scientific definition of energy, or
mentally substitute 'energy' with 'emotion' or something.
--
Keith Willoughby | http://flat222.org/keith/
"It sure was strange to see something on Usenet
about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape."
- Wil Wheaton
WordSmith
>
> > Lacrame, anyone?
>
> Lycra macrame?
> could be interesting
Imagine the possibilities
--
Wordy
Oblah dee Oblah dah
Life goes on
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
WordSmith
>
> >Lacrame, anyone?
>
> No thanks, it gives me a terrible hangover.
Would that make you lacrame intolerant?
SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome
JAF <j....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2aovlusnn7k3nnf69...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:25:27 -0400, deborah barrie
> <debbie...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Care to offer an explanation as to hoe "energy", "positive enery", and
> >> "negative energy" differ"? Or is all just bollocks?
> >
> >sake of argueing when they have no intention of learning, when you think
> >bad thoughts all the time and sap your strength, when you beat your head
> >against a brick wall and expect it to hurt and not your head
>
It doesn't, anymore. The speed of light is no longer constant.
What debs calls +energy appears to be "sensible application fo the enerey
available"
I blame the lamentably low understanding of physics in the general
population, myself.
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > We are eneryi in or out of balance.
>
> Bolocks. Energy is energy; it isn't "good", "bad", "positive" or
> "negative" it simply _is_.
ok , i will agree, the effect is either negative or positive, but i know
a few people who can make my skin crawl with their energy
>
>
> > I think most medicine is not good for us but has to be put up with
> > much of the time until something better comes along.
>
> If it's not "good" for us, why should we use it? Should we not eschew
> something that is "not good for us"? I really can't get any sense out
> of this comment.
me neither, but it really doesnt make sense , we take something to fix on
thing that hurts us some other way.
>
>
> > Oh yes, not forget sex, we need good sex.
>
> Now, that I will agree with.
>
finally
Deborah
>
> --
> one afternoon long ago
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > I am sure this is just another language issue, words and be very limiting.
>
> I'm sure it is; stop misusing the worde "energy" in a vain attempt to
> sound pseudo-scientific, or important, then. It's simply not "energy"
> you are talking about.
>
> > If a woman was to tell you that you smelt good, your energy would
> > change.
>
> That's emotion, not "energy". Donl;t misname things and people might
> understand you better.
>
You people are too technical for me. To me, emotion is some of the best energy
around.
Deborah
deborah barrie
>
> I'm sure it is; stop misusing the worde "energy" in a vain attempt to
> sound pseudo-scientific, or important, then. It's simply not "energy"
> you are talking about.
By the way that is silly. I would never attempt that, i would rather puke.
Deborah
>
deborah barrie
Amen, fairy tale guy, i don't know a thing about physics, i don't even want to.
It apparently makes people very uptight
Deborah
deborah barrie
> Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
>
> > August West <re...@jazz-police.org.uk> writes:
> >
> > > Energy, yes, but "negative" and "postive" energy, in that contect, is
> > > just so much bollocks.
> >
> > It's a euphemism. Forget the scientific definition of energy, or
> > mentally substitute 'energy' with 'emotion' or something.
>
> Exactly; so why use the term "energy" at all? Anyone who wilfully
> abuses clear, precise terminology is either ignorant or disingenuous.
>
> In either case, they are not worthy of trust, and are quite probably
> lt charlatans or snake-oil pedlars.
>
psssst can i sell you someting. I claim ignorance. I should stick to talking
to my own sort.
Deborah
Keith Willoughby
> Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
>
> > August West <re...@jazz-police.org.uk> writes:
> >
> > > Energy, yes, but "negative" and "postive" energy, in that contect, is
> > > just so much bollocks.
> >
> > It's a euphemism. Forget the scientific definition of energy, or
> > mentally substitute 'energy' with 'emotion' or something.
>
> Exactly; so why use the term "energy" at all? Anyone who wilfully
> abuses clear, precise terminology is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Not a fan of simile, metaphor, or poetry, then?
Energy does not always mean the capacity to do work. The phrase
"creative energy" does not mean the capacity to move a pen across
paper. "His performance had energy" is not a truism that he was able
to convert chemical energy into kinetic energy to move his body, it
means that he his performance had passion.
Sam Maughan
> So, you're suggesting that my 69 y/o mother, who we thought was going to die
> until she started on prednisolone, should be having sex instead?
>
> You are completely and utterly out of your mind.
Maybe, but I have to ask: What is you mother thinking right now?
Does she want to be dying with (or without) prednisolone or having
sex?
As a data point: I just asked my mother, two treatments of chemo down
so far, what would she prefer: A longer life with further treatment
or a (very) short life involving lots of sex. Guess which choice she
made?
The actual choice _does_ blur when you ask, rather than prescribe.
Sam.
bof
>
>
>> To me, emotion is some of the best energy around.
>
>liberate it is set it on fire. The only emotion involved would be The
>Influence yelling at me...
and a great joy at liberating your pent up pyromaniacal emotion (RTA
'energy' for the New Age inspired)
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> In article <6hy9b4e...@news2.kororaa.com>, August West <re...@jazz-police.org.uk> writes:
>
> [13 lines snipped]
>
>>A number of normal standard treatements hav ebeen shown
>>to be about as useful as leeches and bloodletting.
>
> Which are, of course, the standard and efficiatious treatment for blood
> pooling in re-attached extremities, such as ears and fingers.
I know it's possible to get special BP (British Pharmacopiae(sp?);
"medically approved") leeches for just that purpose. There was also
something a few years back which suggested using maggots to clean up wounds
that would not heal properly.
Incidentally, lavender and eucalyptus oils are available in BP form at a
fraction of the aromatherapy version. A lot of decongestant oils are
available as BP because they work pretty well.
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >
> > You people are too technical for me.
>
> Not technical, just accurate.
>
> > To me, emotion is some of the best energy around.
>
> Jeez. The sofa I'm sitting on has lots of energy. All I have to do to
> liberate it is set it on fire. The only emotion involved would be The
> Influence yelling at me...
>
ok you win, i am making you a trophy
Deborah
deborah barrie
> In article <3D6003B5...@sympatico.ca>, deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> [26 lines snipped]
>
> >Lots, of things, positive thinking, self esteem for a start. Acupuncture,
> >massage, exercise, good diet, clean water, finding out what things your body is
> >missing and restoring the balance. Removing toxins if you are contaminated and
> >most of us are.
> >We are eneryi in or out of balance. I think most medicine is not good for us but
> >has to be put up with much of the time until something better comes along.
> >I myself when i get full treatment, do not need meds but without acupuncture,
> >massage etc, i can not cope with the level of pain without them. Oh yes, not
> >forget sex, we need good sex.
>
> So, you're suggesting that my 69 y/o mother, who we thought was going to die
> until she started on prednisolone, should be having sex instead?
>
> You are completely and utterly out of your mind.
>
>
Actually recent tests show otherwise but hey who believes standard medical garbade anyway I am
sorry about your mother Huge but that is taking what i said way out of proportion
Deborah
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > > I'm sure it is; stop misusing the worde "energy" in a vain attempt
> > > to sound pseudo-scientific, or important, then. It's simply not
> > > "energy" you are talking about.
> >
> > By the way that is silly.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> >I would never attempt that, i would rather puke.
>
> Then why are you misusing the word energy?
>
> Or are you just too stupid to see what you are saying?
>
I will let you be the judge of that
Deborah
deborah barrie
> deborah barrie <debbie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > psssst can i sell you someting. I claim ignorance.
>
> So shut up about things of which you are ignorant, then.
>
> > I should stick to talking to my own sort.
>
> The gullible and the ignorant?
>
>
That was what i was implying, good for you
Deborah
Keith Willoughby
> Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
>
> > August West <re...@jazz-police.org.uk> writes:
> >
> > > Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > August West <re...@jazz-police.org.uk> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Energy, yes, but "negative" and "postive" energy, in that contect, is
> > > > > just so much bollocks.
> > > >
> > > > It's a euphemism. Forget the scientific definition of energy, or
> > > > mentally substitute 'energy' with 'emotion' or something.
> > >
> > > Exactly; so why use the term "energy" at all? Anyone who wilfully
> > > abuses clear, precise terminology is either ignorant or disingenuous.
> >
> > Not a fan of simile, metaphor, or poetry, then?
>
> Not in a biological or medical context, no.
That's a good point. Fair enough.
Chris Eilbeck
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:06:13 +0100, "SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome"
> <daveD...@man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >It doesn't, anymore. The speed of light is no longer constant.
>
> But so long as mass remains constant, which it does, E and c² will
> always have the relationship 'm' in common.
But m doesn't remain constant, does it?
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck mailto:ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk
Shade
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 20:10:34 +0100, "Shade" <clark_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> How does that fit in with E=mc?
>>
>> Hasn't that been debunked? Something to do with the speed of light
>> no longer being constant?
>>
> It should still hold true, shouldn't it?
> If you read it as p=mv, then as the SOL(v) decreases, the force(p)
> required to accelerate mass(m) will fall, and p=mv (E=mc²).
> Whether the SO L increases or decreases, or force is added or
> subtracted, mass (as distinct from weight) remains constant, so p
> (will always) = mv.
I dont know what this is saying, but it sounds very good.
>
>> Hell, what do i know?
>
> Seilf emit.
This too.
Actually, no hang on, it's gone again. Something about the speed of light
not being a constant, it was very intilectually profound, but i've forgotten
it now. Damn, physics will have to stay stuck in it's present rut, rather
than leaping forward through my insight.
---
--
uk.misc Don't change your bedlinen without it.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/allen.clark/
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 15/08/2002
Juggs
>It should still hold true, shouldn't it?
>If you read it as p=mv, then as the SOL(v) decreases, the force(p)
>required to accelerate mass(m) will fall, and p=mv (E=mc²).
>Whether the SO L increases or decreases, or force is added or
>subtracted, mass (as distinct from weight) remains constant, so p
>(will always) = mv.
As something approaches the c, for whatever value of c, the force
required to produce acceleration deviates from the linear f=ma rule.
Effectively, the work produced by a force acting through a distance
goes into increasing the relativistic 'mass' - the 'work' (less fuzzy
than energy, see rest of the discussion) directly converts into mass.
m(relativistic) = m (rest)/ (1 - v^2/c^2) ^1/2
as v becomes closer to c, the denominater term approaches zero, and
therefore the relativistic mass (which is the ratio of the rest mass
to the denominater term) approaches infinity. As the mass gets
bigger, larger and larger force is needed to produce smaller and
smaller acceleration. v = c is never reached.
I'm reading p as momentum up there - p = mv is the newtonian momentum
equation. F is delta p/delta t ie the rate of change of momentum.
Although it's probably not entirely correct to say that mass
increases, because we don't really know what mass is. However, it is
my understanding that, effectively, the force needed to produce a
particular delta v increases as you get closer to the speed of light,
not decreases.
This will take us back to the energy thing if I continue, so I won't.
Glenys
--
Take a walk down to the mall, smelling piss and beer and gas.
Put my first name and tgis in the right places.
Juggs
wrote:
>> > Lacrame, anyone?
>>
>> Lycra macrame?
>> could be interesting
>
>Imagine the possibilities
All sorts of things could be tied into knots.
Juggs
wrote:
>as v becomes closer to c, the denominater term approaches zero, and
Or nominator. The bit on the bottom, anyway. I can never remember
the difference, and so usually try to avoid using the words nominator
and denominator.
Lister
far, far away, Juggs <firs...@yourdomain.co.uk> slammed a pint glass
on the table and said :
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:06:26 +0100, Juggs <firs...@yourdomain.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>as v becomes closer to c, the denominater term approaches zero, and
>
>Or nominator. The bit on the bottom, anyway. I can never remember
>the difference, and so usually try to avoid using the words nominator
>and denominator.
>
>Glenys
Not too hard,
considering it's Numerator(top) and Denominator(bottom)
--
www.friendsreunited.co.uk |use this as
Listing free, registration £5/year |your signature
everyone from the UK visit this site, |and post it
Tell everyone you know, on or offline |wherever you go
Sam Maughan
> On 18 Aug 2002 23:00:48 +0100, Chris Eilbeck
> <ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >JAF <j....@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:06:13 +0100, "SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome"
> >> <daveD...@man.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It doesn't, anymore. The speed of light is no longer constant.
> >>
> >> But so long as mass remains constant, which it does, E and c² will
> >> always have the relationship 'm' in common.
> >
> >But m doesn't remain constant, does it?
> >
> surely m does, but a(cceleration) doesn't?
That was quick^2
Sam.
SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome
> Not a fan of simile, metaphor, or poetry, then?
but the typical mis-uses of 'energy' aren't any of those.
>
> Energy does not always mean the capacity to do work. The phrase
> "creative energy" does not mean the capacity to move a pen across
> paper. "His performance had energy" is not a truism that he was able
> to convert chemical energy into kinetic energy to move his body, it
> means that he his performance had passion.
This merely indicates a sad diminution of language skills. There are
plenty of better and more accurate words out there. Verve. Dynamism.
Going back to the original argument, the use of the word "energy" in
the pseudo-medical arena is simply wrong, as there is no physically
measurable phenomenon to which it could refer.
--
Ed Headrick, the US inventor who figured out how to make the Frisbee
fly fast and straight, by adding aerodynamic ridges on top of the
disc, has died at 78, in La Selva Beach, California. His ashes will
be made into Frisbees and given to relatives and friends. [Reuter]